Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Halliwell I wanted to say I am sorry to hear about your losses over the course of a few short years. I know this will never help much but I wanted you to know that my heart goes out to you.

Thanks you for your words. They mean a lot.

__________________"I excel at following the important ones." Admiral Kathryn Janeway answering Counselor Cambridge's questioning her whether she excels at following orders. Star Trek Voyager: Protectors by New York Times Bestselling authorKirsten "Mother F**ng" Beyer

Halliwell, I'm sorry for your losses. I lost my father just a couple of years ago. But that shows how different people can be affected in different ways. My loss made me less willing to see a story in which a fictional character was resurrected, because I think that's usually a copout. In real life we don't get back the people we lose, and I'd rather see fiction that copes with the reality of loss. Of course there can be exceptions, and I think Kirsten did a good job with the story she told. But I never would've agreed to write such a story myself, because that's just not a place I can get to emotionally, not when I have to deal with the irreversible reality of death in my own recent experience.

So I wish you could understand that I have no desire to attack you. We have no reason to be at odds over this. Since we've both suffered personal loss in real life, we should both understand how truly insignificant it is to "lose" a fictional character and how pointless it is to create animosity and hostility over it. Unfortunately, you're determined to perceive this as some fierce ideological battle, and that's making it impossible to have a reasonable conversation with you about it. And that's just sad -- far sadder than anyone's decision not to read a book.

When I buy a book with the title of Star Trek Voyager on the cover I expect it to have Janeway in it. She is the "Batman" to Chakotay's "Robin"

But it's not Star Trek: Janeway, it's Star Trek: Voyager. The Star Trek format has proven time and again to be bigger than the characters that inhabit it or else series like The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise would have never been possible.

For this reader, the death of Janeway gave Voyager a sense of growth that it never had before. Beyer had done an incredible job of both looking back and moving ahead all at the same time.

Halliwell, I'm sorry for your losses. I lost my father just a couple of years ago. But that shows how different people can be affected in different ways. My loss made me less willing to see a story in which a fictional character was resurrected, because I think that's usually a copout. In real life we don't get back the people we lose, and I'd rather see fiction that copes with the reality of loss. Of course there can be exceptions, and I think Kirsten did a good job with the story she told. But I never would've agreed to write such a story myself, because that's just not a place I can get to emotionally, not when I have to deal with the irreversible reality of death in my own recent experience.

So I wish you could understand that I have no desire to attack you. We have no reason to be at odds over this. Since we've both suffered personal loss in real life, we should both understand how truly insignificant it is to "lose" a fictional character and how pointless it is to create animosity and hostility over it. Unfortunately, you're determined to perceive this as some fierce ideological battle, and that's making it impossible to have a reasonable conversation with you about it. And that's just sad -- far sadder than anyone's decision not to read a book.

I have no desire to attack you either. And as much as I've dealt with death the last three years I still have my parents, though in all probability they won't be around for a long time. So I do sympathize with your loss.

I've been thinking about this Bring Back Janeway versus Leave Janeway dead debate/fight/argument a bit today and I realize that my arguments could be considered ideological. That the label of a fanatic to my BBKJ commrads and I may be earned. Indeed we are passionate about Kathryn Janeway.

Here's the thing and I'll leave it alone and be done with it. Because I appreciate your words above. The whole reason I got involved with BBKJ a year or so ago is because I saw that they were being treated harshly and unfairly. And the reason why that I say harshly and unfairly is this: they are called fanatics. Aren't we all, as Star Trek fans, yourself included, a fanatic? No one who puts the kinds of details like the ones you do in your books could be considered anything other than what the outside world would call fanatical. And I say this with respect: I would say your are more fanatical than other writers in the Trek kingdom because your novels offer a passionate love for Trek in ways the others don't most of the time.

Here's how I choose what to read or re-read on any given day. If I want rip roaring fun and edge of the seat kind of writing, I go pull out a David Mack book. If I want to be pulled at the heart strings I go to Kirstin Beyer. And when I want to have the fan-boy in me fed I to to a Christopher Bennett novel. These three authors are the ones I love the most because they help fuel the kinds of moods I want to be in when I want some good Trek.

My whole thing with you is that while you may be right in the details your wrong in the execution. Should people boycott books because they don't have a character they want in it? That's not for me to say. That is something their own heart has to dictate. But I remember when I was little all the hype over Spock being killed and the threats of a boycott back in 81. And I remember hearing from Nick Meyers own words about how he disagreed with the choice to leave Spock's tube at the end of Khan without his approval. But what he didn't do was beat people over the head claiming over and over again that he was right and Harve Bennett was wrong and why death should not be cheated. On the contrary he states his opinions and when they needed help writing Star Trek 4 he did it. And when he was asked to help write and direct Star Trek 6 he did it. And while he may have been right, either objectively or creatively, that didn't make Harve Bennett wrong.

That was my point last night. You, me, all of trek fans are fanatical and a bit anal when it comes to Trek. I just feel that if the BBKJ folks wanted to boycott books until Kathryn Janeway's return then that's their prerogative. And if, right or wrong, the boycott's and the fight to bring Janeway back DID result in the editors change of heart to bring her back then congratulate them and be happy for them. But if what they did really DID NOT bring back Janeway, as someone who loves Star Trek as much as you do then you should still congratulate them because a character they...no...we love has returned. Telling one group of fans they are right or wrong about Star Trek is what makes the world look at us all like the Trekkies we are. You included. A bit touched in the head.

Kathryn Janeway did not just return but she returned in a damned fine book called Eternal Tide.

__________________"I excel at following the important ones." Admiral Kathryn Janeway answering Counselor Cambridge's questioning her whether she excels at following orders. Star Trek Voyager: Protectors by New York Times Bestselling authorKirsten "Mother F**ng" Beyer

When I buy a book with the title of Star Trek Voyager on the cover I expect it to have Janeway in it. She is the "Batman" to Chakotay's "Robin"

But it's not Star Trek: Janeway, it's Star Trek: Voyager. The Star Trek format has proven time and again to be bigger than the characters that inhabit it or else series like The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise would have never been possible.

For this reader, the death of Janeway gave Voyager a sense of growth that it never had before. Beyer had done an incredible job of both looking back and moving ahead all at the same time.

No. It didn't. But watch the show. The credits read "starring" Kate Mulgrew as Captain Kathryn Janeway and then goes to also starring Robert Beltran as Chakotay. She was the series lead and to a lot of us that means something.

__________________"I excel at following the important ones." Admiral Kathryn Janeway answering Counselor Cambridge's questioning her whether she excels at following orders. Star Trek Voyager: Protectors by New York Times Bestselling authorKirsten "Mother F**ng" Beyer

No. It didn't. But watch the show. The credits read "starring" Kate Mulgrew as Captain Kathryn Janeway and then goes to also starring Robert Beltran as Chakotay. She was the series lead and to a lot of us that means something.

I don't get it. The captain/commanding officer is always the lead and listed first in the credits. In the main timeline, Kirk has been dead for nearly twenty years now, being listed as the star in the credits didn't save him from death.

No. It didn't. But watch the show. The credits read "starring" Kate Mulgrew as Captain Kathryn Janeway and then goes to also starring Robert Beltran as Chakotay. She was the series lead and to a lot of us that means something.

I don't get it. The captain/commanding officer is always the lead and listed first in the credits. In the main timeline, Kirk has been dead for nearly twenty years now, being listed as the star in the credits didn't save him from death.

Maybe as far as canon and but even that's a cheat since the 2009 movies has Kirk alive and well. And I find the well he's dead in the novelverse argument light a well because Simon and Shuster brought Kirk back from the dead not two years later with The Return by Williams Shatner. They can scream all they want that it's not the same continuity but they sold a line of books that brought back Kirk. Fans of his could read stories with him in it while fans of KJ could not.

__________________"I excel at following the important ones." Admiral Kathryn Janeway answering Counselor Cambridge's questioning her whether she excels at following orders. Star Trek Voyager: Protectors by New York Times Bestselling authorKirsten "Mother F**ng" Beyer

I think it's wrong to say that just because the captain, as a character, is listed first in the credits it automatically means the show is about the captain, and the rest of the characters are only sidekicks. True, the writers of Voyager sometimes made it feel like that, but that was their mistake. The Trek shows are not about captains and their underlings, they are about a group of people. And groups of people change, in real life and in fiction. It alters the dynamics of a group when someone leaves, but that doesn't mean the group has to be less then they were. DS9 showed us that with the Relaunch. Sure, half the crew was gone, but after a while the remaining crew and the new members formed a whole new, interesting dynamic.

Everyone's important. But to think that a group can no longer survive without a certain person, is (in my honoust opinion) wrong. It will be different, certainly. But the group, the family, can go own.

In the comics, Bruce Wayne was believed to be dead for a while, and Dick Grayson (the first Robin, now Nightwing) took the cowl and cape and became Batman for a while. Just as Chakotay realized that he too could become captain by his own rights and not just be in Janeway's shadow.

I think it's wrong to say that just because the captain, as a character, is listed first in the credits it automatically means the show is about the captain, and the rest of the characters are only sidekicks.... The Trek shows are not about captains and their underlings, they are about a group of people.

Exactly. Sisko was listed first in DS9's credits, but there were plenty of episodes that he was barely in. All the modern Trek shows have been intended as ensemble shows, although ENT ended up being less so than its predecessors. The captain (or commander, in early DS9) was the central character, the anchor of the ensemble, but the shows were never built entirely around their captains. The only Trek series that was meant to be centered overwhelmingly on its captain was TOS, and that didn't work out because Spock was the breakout character and Kirk ended up having to ride his coattails.

I think it's wrong to say that just because the captain, as a character, is listed first in the credits it automatically means the show is about the captain, and the rest of the characters are only sidekicks.... The Trek shows are not about captains and their underlings, they are about a group of people.

Exactly. Sisko was listed first in DS9's credits, but there were plenty of episodes that he was barely in. All the modern Trek shows have been intended as ensemble shows, although ENT ended up being less so than its predecessors. The captain (or commander, in early DS9) was the central character, the anchor of the ensemble, but the shows were never built entirely around their captains. The only Trek series that was meant to be centered overwhelmingly on its captain was TOS, and that didn't work out because Spock was the breakout character and Kirk ended up having to ride his coattails.

I agree! Although, I do feel that Voyager lost the ensemble-part somewhere during season 5, where it felt like it was mostly Seven, The Doctor and Janeway. But even so, the earlier seasons of Voyager focused on the cast as a whole, not just the captain.

I agree! Although, I do feel that Voyager lost the ensemble-part somewhere during season 5, where it felt like it was mostly Seven, The Doctor and Janeway.

That's because Seven and the Doctor were the breakout characters -- the most popular by far with audiences, and as I remarked above, the easiest ones for writers to come up with good stories about. The other characters, frankly, just weren't as rich or interesting by that point. They'd all long since settled into their relationships (except the evolving Paris/Torres romance), and whatever early conflicts they'd had based on their differing origins and ideologies had long since faded.

Chakotay actually did manage to remain in a strong fourth-place position, having nearly as many focus episodes in the last four seasons as the Doctor did, although he was somehat sidelined in season 6. Torres and Paris remained moderately prominent since their developing relationship gave the writers something to work with. It was really only Tuvok, Kim, and Neelix who got the short end of the stick; of the 103 episodes in seasons 4-7 (counting "Endgame" as one), Tuvok was the primary focus in only 10, and Neelix and Kim in half a dozen each.

Maybe as far as canon and but even that's a cheat since the 2009 movies has Kirk alive and well. And I find the well he's dead in the novelverse argument light a well because Simon and Shuster brought Kirk back from the dead not two years later with The Return by Williams Shatner. They can scream all they want that it's not the same continuity but they sold a line of books that brought back Kirk. Fans of his could read stories with him in it while fans of KJ could not.

Does that mean we can have 'Eternal Tide' declared non-canon and have KJ go off and have adventures in her own books? Because I would LOVE that.

Maybe as far as canon and but even that's a cheat since the 2009 movies has Kirk alive and well. And I find the well he's dead in the novelverse argument light a well because Simon and Shuster brought Kirk back from the dead not two years later with The Return by Williams Shatner. They can scream all they want that it's not the same continuity but they sold a line of books that brought back Kirk. Fans of his could read stories with him in it while fans of KJ could not.

Does that mean we can have 'Eternal Tide' declared non-canon and have KJ go off and have adventures in her own books? Because I would LOVE that.